Friday, August 24, 2012

Why did Anita Guzzardi, the former Chief Financial Officer of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, embezzle $906,000 from her employer?

In court today at a sentencing hearing, four different people offered four different explanations.

The prosecutor said Guzzardi didn't need the money, but she was greedy, and liked "nice things."

Guzzardi's addictions counselor said she was a pathological gambler who suffered from depression.

Guzzardi's older sister said she came from a dysfunctional family with a father who was a gambling addict and a mother who was a compulsive shopper and also abusive.

And finally, Guzzardi's lawyer said she felt betrayed by the archdiocese, after she read the 2005 grand jury report, and discovered that for decades the church she worked for had been covering up the sexual abuse of children.

Defense lawyer Louis R. Busico said his client had a clean record, was truly repentant, and had already paid back $260,000. Guzzardi posed no further menace to society, the defense lawyer argued, so putting her in jail would serve "no legitimate purpose." Why not just give her probation?

But Assistant District Attorney Lisa Caulfield, citing seven years of calculated criminal activity, and the sheer amount of the embezzlement, asked the judge to impose a sentence of 5 1/2 to 11 years.

The one thing at the sentencing hearing that everybody agreed on, including Guzzardi, was that she stole the money. From 2005 to 2011, Guzzardi, 42, of Haddon Heights, N.J., wrote 330 checks out of archdiocese accounts, to pay her own bills. She pleaded guilty to three third-degree felonies: theft by deception, unlawful use of a computer, and forgery.

Judge Ellen Ceisler told the defendant that a sentence of probation would be viewed as "a slap on the wrist," and would send the wrong message to society. But the district attorney had overlooked several mitigating factors, the judge said, including the defendant's "heartfelt remorse," and that $260,000 she had already paid back. So the judge sentenced Guzzardi to two to seven years in prison, plus seven years of probation. The judge also ordered Guzzardi to pay back another $646,627 in restitution.

The embezzlement was first flagged by an investigator for American Express, who called the archdiocese and asked why they were writing checks to casinos. At least $370,000 of the embezzled money went for cash advances and purchases at casinos in Atlantic City, Las Vegas and Key West, Mexico and the Bahamas. Guzzardi, according to the prosecutor, also used the embezzled money to pay down her mortgage, and take family vacations to Hawaii, San Francisco and the Bahamas. Guzzardi also wrote out big checks payable to herself. Even though she and her husband had good jobs and no children, the prosecutor said.

"She had plenty of money," said Assistant District Attorney Lisa Caulfield. She also had plenty of trust from her employer Guzzardi had worked for the archdiocese since she was 20. She kept getting promoted until she finally reached the rank of CFO in 2011, with an annual salary of $124,000.

"She likes nice things,"Caulfield told the judge. Guzzardi spent church money on "ridiculous luxuries," such as $5,000 worth of shoes and a Christian Dior dress while vacationing in Las Vegas.

"She literally parties for seven years on somebody else's dime," the prosecutor told the judge. Caulfield rejected the defense argument that the 2005 grand jury report prompted Guzzardi to go on a spending binge fueled by embezzled money.

Guzzardi stole $39,000 before the 2005 grand jury report ever came out, Caulfield told the judge. The defense argument that the grand jury made her do it was "a convenient excuse," the prosecutor said, "an excuse made up now to justify what she's been doing for seven years."

When someone "steals money when you don't need it, that is plain greed," Caulfield said, while asking for a sentence of 5 1/2 to 11 years, plus 10 years probation.

The courtroom was packed with some 36 friends and family members of Guzzardi, who took turns standing up in court to show support. They included Guzzardi's husband, sister, an uncle and aunt, brothers-in-law, cousins, nieces, nephews and friends.

Richard Sockriter, the addictions counselor who has been seeing Guzzardi once a week for the past year said her pathological gambling "affects all aspects of a person's life."

A tearful Guzzardi told the judge she had been "humbled" in the past year, after her crimes had been exposed, and in the words of her lawyer, "her name and face was plastered all over the news." Guzzardi apologized to the archdiocese for her crimes, and to her friends and family for the "terrrible and selfish way" she had behaved.

"I let them down," she said of her supporters. "My heart aches each and every day" for the pain she had inflicted on friends and family, she said. "I was out of control." She promised to make full restitution. "I'll pay to make up for the lies ... I have a repentant heart."

Defense lawyer Busico told the judge his client had just expressed "true remorse." He then drew a parallel with other archdiocese employees.

"What a difference it would make," he said, if other people at the archdiocese "had that kind of remorse, and came forward to admit their complicity," instead of doing what they usually do, "ask for a transfer."

Not only did his client confess her guilt, and help the district attorney's office in its investigation, Busico said, but on two occasions, Guzzardi "came forward at her own peril" to tell investigators about the inner workings of the archdiocese.

Guzzardi told investigators the how, when and why priests were transferred, her lawyer said. She also told investigators the true financial picture of the archdiocese over the last several years, Busico told the judge. He referred to the archdiocese's money, and "who knew where it went."

"The Commonwealth chose not to use it," Busico said of the information offered by Guzzardi. [When asked about Guzzardi's meetings with the district attorney's office, prosecutor Caulfield said she was aware of two meetings, but as far as specifics, she did not know what Busico was talking about.]

Busico also asserted that no schools or parishes had to be closed because of the crimes his client had committed. "They were insured," Busico said of the archdiocese. "If the loss of money is the biggest problem in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, what a horrible place it must be."

He amplified on an argument made in his sentencing memo. "She was involved with an institution that she felt betrayed by," he told the judge.

After the judge imposed sentence, Busico asked for a stay so Guzzardi could get her life in order before going to jail. But the judge said that Guzzardi had been instructed to come to court today prepared for the imposition of sentence.

And then while her friends and family cried, Guzzardi was led away by a female sheriff's deputy.

Afterwards, Busico said he was "grateful that the judge had recognized that his client was sincere and remorseful," and gave Guzzardi less time than the Commonwealth asked for. "And we're dissapointed that nobody from the archdiocese showed up to express forgiveness."

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

They may have escaped criminal prosecution, but according to a memorandum of law filed Monday in Common Pleas Court, Bishops Edward P. Cullen and Joseph R. Cistone can expect to be named as defendants in an ongoing civil case against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia regarding the sexual abuse of a former 10-year-old altar boy.

Lawyers representing "Billy Doe" filed the memorandum of law in the civil case of Billy Doe V. the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Doe is the pseudonym for the former altar boy sexually abused by Father Edward V. Avery, who pleaded guilty on March 22 to involuntary deviant sexual intercourse with a minor, and was sentenced to 2 1/2 to five years in prison. Avery's abuse of Billy Doe also resulted in the June 22 conviction of Msgr. William J. Lynn for endangering the welfare of a child. Lynn is now serving a prison term of three to six years.

The former altar boy allegedly was passed from one abuser to another at St. Jerome's parish. On Sept. 4, two more alleged abusers of Billy Doe -- Charles Engelhardt, a former priest, and Bernard Shero, a former archdiocese school teacher -- are scheduled to go on trial before Judge M. Teresa Sarmina at the Criminal Justice Center.

Engelhardt and Shero were originally supposed to be tried back in March with Father Avery and Father James J. Brennan, before they were severed from the case, at their request. In the criminal case, lawyers for Engelhardt had been seeking the mental health records of the former altar boy, but Judge Sarmina ruled against them.

The defense lawyers then sought to obtain the victim's mental health records through discovery in the civil case, which was filed back in July 2011, but was put on hold until the criminal case was over. On July 29, 2011, Common Pleas Court Judge Lillian Harris Ransom ruled that the defense was not entitled to the victim's mental health records. On Nov. 2, 2011, Common Pleas Judge William Manfredi stayed all discovery in the civil case until June 30, 2012, based on assumptions that the criminal trials would be over by then.

In court papers filed Monday, lawyers for Billy Doe contend that defense lawyers for Engelhardt and Shero are now attempting to take advantage of being severed from the Lynn case by renewing their request for the victim's mental health records after the stay had expired, despite the fact that judges in both the civil and criminal cases had ruled that the defendants were not entitled to the victim's mental health records. In the memorandum of law, Doe's lawyers state that defense lawyers for Engelhardt and Shero had argued that they are running out of time to conduct discovery in the civil case.

The civil case filed on behalf of the former altar boy names as defendants, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the late Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua, Msgr. Lynn, Father Avery, Engelhardt and Shero.

In the memorandum of law filed Monday, Doe's lawyers argue, "Engelhardt's contention that he will have insufficient time to conduct discovery prior to the scheduled trial date is illusory. Upon completion of the parallel criminal trial, plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint naming [as defendants] the parish, St. Jerome's, Father Engelhardt's Religious Order, the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, and a number of high ranking Archdiocese officials -- including former Bishop of Allentown, Edward Cullen, and current Bishop of Sagninaw, Michigan, Joseph Cistone -- who conspired with the late Cardinal Bevilacqua to cover up the rampant sexual abuse of children by priests of the Philadelphia Archdiocese."

"Once the amended Complaint is filed, a new Case Management Order will have to be entered, giving all parties new scheduling deadlines," Billy Doe's lawyers argue. "This fact totally obviates Engelhardt's concern that he will have insufficient time for discovery."

The district attorney's office on Monday sent a letter to Common Pleas Court Judge Marlene F. Lachman, requesting that discovery in the civil case be stayed until the criminal case involving Engelhardt and Shero is over.

If Doe's lawyers follow through with their threat to name Cullen and Cistone as defendants, it would move the blame for the sex abuse scandal in the archdiocese a couple of notches above Lynn on the organizational chart. Cullen and Cistone are both former Vicars for Administration, with Cistone succeeding Cullen in that position. As secretary for clergy, Lynn reported to the Assistant Vicar for Administration. As Vicar for Administration, Bishop Cullen functioned as the number two man in the archdiocese under Cardinal Bevilacqua, and had the power to sign documents on the cardinal's behalf.

Lynn was appointed secretary for clergy in 1992. He subsequently drew up a list of 35 abuser priests. On Feb. 18, 1994, Lynn submitted that list to Msgr. James E. Molloy, then Assistant Vicar for Administration under Cullen. Lynn's list divided the abuser priests into three categories. First, Lynn listed three priests as "diagnosed pedophiles:" Rev. James J. Brzyski, who left the priesthood in 1985, Father Nicholas V. Cudemo, listed as having "reduced faculties" and "living with relatives," and Father Peter J. Dunne, who had "no official assignment."

Number one on the list is Father Edward V. Avery, then a chaplain at Nazareth Hospital, and a resident at St. Jerome's parish.

Under Father Avery's name, Lynn wrote, "alcoholism and action with same minor three times," and "action occurred more than five years ago."

Lynn brought several copies of his list to a high-level archdiocese "issues meeting" on Feb. 15, 1994 attended by Bevilacqua, Cullen and Molloy. Bevilacqua subsequently ordered several copies of Lynn's list to be destroyed.

"On 3-22-94, at 10:45 a.m. I shredded, in the presence of Reverend Joseph R. Cistone, four copies of these lists from the secret archives," Molloy wrote in a handwritten memo discovered in an archdiocese safe in 2006. "This action was taken on the basis of a directive I received from Cardinal Bevilacqua at the issues meeting of 2-15-94 ..." The copies that were destroyed included the original list and copies made for Bevilacqua, Cullen and Molloy, according to Molloy's handwritten memo.

On the note, it says in more handwriting: "witnessed: Rev. Joseph R. Cistone 3-22-94."

Molloy died in 2006. Both Cistone and Cullen have never publicly discussed the shredding of the memos.

Lynn's memo may have been shredded, but the number of 35 abuser priests would be heard of again. On April 29, 2004, Cistone, then a monsignor, was brought before a grand jury and questioned regarding the issuance of press releases in 2002 that claimed the archdiocese had only 35 abuser priests in its employ in the previous 50 years.

Cardinal Bevilacqua also used that figure in an interview with Lynn Doyle. The talk show host questioned Bevilacqua in relation to the Boston sex abuse scandal, which at the time involved more than 80 priests. In his grand jury testimony, Cistone, as vicar of administration, oversaw the issuing of press releases.

"When that press release was generated with the number 35 over the past 50 years, what did you do to verify that the information being released to the public was accurate?" asked Assistant District Attorney Maureen McCartney.

"I relied on Msgr. Lynn's information," Cistone said.

"And who was it that gave the directive to Msgr. Lynn to gather that data?" the prosecutor asked.

"I can't recall how a directive came for that," Cistone said. "It may have been in the discussion. I can't recall how -- where the directive came from or ... I just don't recall."

"Did Msgr. Lynn just give you a memo that said there's 35 cases, or did he provide you with the background and the names of the 35 that he was referring to?"

"He gave a number, and if I recall, it was in a discussion that we had," Cistone replied. "It would have been a table discussion with the -- with different parties present for his Eminence, perhaps our communications person."

"He gave the number, but no names," Cistone said. "I mean, that's where the number would have come from, as an estimate of where you -- or you know, as a number of cases."

Cistone told the prosecutor he thought that in drawing up a list of 35 abuser priests, Lynn had been assisted by lawyers from Stradley Ronon Sevens & Young, the archdiocese's law firm. The prosecutor subsequently asked Cistone about Bevilacqua's public pronouncements.

"Cardinal Bevilacqua, in issuing the public statement that there were 35 credible allegations, he also indicated on a number of occasions that there was no priests presently working in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia that had had a credible allegation against him," the prosecutor said. "You are aware that he made that statement, correct?"

"Correct," Cistone said.

"Okay," the prosecutor said. "He made it both in a press release, and he also made it on the Lynn Doyle show, correct?"

"Well, I don't know about the Lynn Doyle show, but the press release ..." Cistone said.

"Okay," the prosecutor said. "Do you know what was the basis of his making that statement?"

"I do not know other than the information that was presented by Msgr. Lynn," Cistone said.

"Were you present when Msgr. Lynn presented that information to the cardinal?"

"The number 35?" Cistone said. "Yes I would have been in that. As I said, we were a round table discussion where it was presented."

The prosecutor cited Cistone's responsibility as vicar for administration to oversee press releases, and asked what Cistone had done to make himself "comfortable with the fact that that was an accurate statement."

"I relied on Msgr. Lynn's information," Cistone said.

"But in relying on that information," the prosecutor said, "Did you go to him and say, Bill, you put this -- you know, this is the information you're giving me. How did you arrive at it? What did you use? How can I tell the Cardinal that this is something he should feel comfortable saying? Did you do any of those things?"

Monday, August 20, 2012

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Msgr. Lynn's lawyers are asking the state Superior Court to let their client out on bail pending appeal.

In a brief filed this week, Lynn's lawyers say the monsignor was convicted on June 22 of one count of endangering the welfare of a child [EWOC] "based upon a novel and controversial theory of liability that held him criminally responsible for inadequately supervising a priest ... alleged to have sexually abused a child."

The state's 1972 child endangerment law was usually applied to parents, guardians, and those in direct contact with children, say defense lawyers Thomas A. Bergstrom, Allison Khaskelis, and Alan J. Tauber. Lynn is the first supervisor in the history of Pennsylvania to be charged under the old child endangerment law, even though he never had any direct contact with the child, the lawyers argue.

The defense lawyers say they have a "substantial legal claim" because in 2005, then-District Attorney Lynne Abraham agreed that the old state endangerment law did not apply to Lynn, Cardinal Bevilacqua or other members of the hierarchy of the archdiocese of Philadelphia.

A 2005 grand jury report concluded: "the offense of endangering the welfare of children is too narrow to support a successful prosecution of the decision makers who are running the Archdiocese. The statute confines its coverage to parents, guardians, and other persons 'supervising the welfare of a child.' High level Archdiocesan officials, however, were far removed from any direct contact with children."

The l972 EWOC law states: "A parent, guardian or other persons supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of a child by violating a duty of care, protection or support."

"Pennsylvania appellate courts that have examined the [old] statute have uniformly concluded ... that those responsible for 'supervising the welfare of a child' are parents, parental surrogates or direct supervisors of children only," the lawyers argued.

In 2006, the district attorney's office "zealously advocated for an an amendment of the EWOC statute to cover supervisors and employers that would make church hierarchy and corporate managers liable going forward," the defense lawyers wrote.

As part of that lobbying effort, Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen argued in an Oct. 1, 2006 article in the Allentown Morning Call that the legislature should "promptly enact the Philadelphia grand jury recommendations to: make the law against endangering the welfare of children explicitly apply to supervisors who place children in the care of those known to be dangerous to children ... What criminal law reforms cannot do is identify or hold accountable past abusers and enablers who have successfully concealed their offenses until after the statute of limitations has run."

The amended law, which took effect in 2007, says, "A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support."

Then in 2011, a new district attorney, Seth Williams, and a new grand jury decided the old 1972 law did apply to Lynn, and the monsignor was indicted for endangering the welfare of a child. In their brief, Lynn's defense lawyers refer to the change of policy as "an unprecedented flip-flop of statutory interpretation" that has never been explained.

Lynn was sentenced to three to six years in prison by Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, who also denied him bail. In their appeal to Superior Court, Lynn's defense lawyers contend that the 61-year-old monsignor deserves bail because he has been a priest for 36 years, has deep ties to the community, and no previous record of criminal behavior, so he is not a flight risk.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Judge M. Teresa Sarmina today denied a defense motion that would have allowed Msgr. William J. Lynn out on bail pending an appeal of his historic conviction. Lynn, the first Catholic administrator in the country to be convicted in connection with clerical sex abuse, has been in jail since June 22, when a jury convicted him of one count of endangering the welfare of a child, a third-degree felony.

On July 24, Judge Sarmina sentenced Lynn to three to six years in prison for failing to protect a 10-year-old altar boy back in 1999 from a predator priest. The defense argued that by the time an appeal is heard, the monsignor may have already served his prison sentence, which is why Lynn's defense lawyers thought the monsignor should be freed during the appeal process.

Judge Sarmina, however, rejected that motion. She said that technically under the law, Lynn was not entitled to bail because his sentence was more than two years in duration. Jeffrey M. Lindy, one of Lynn's defense lawyers, argued that although Lynn did not have a right to bail, it was within the judge's powers of discretion to grant him bail.

Lindy cited extraordinary circumstances, namely that Lynn had been the first supervisor in the history of Pennsylvania to be charged under the 1972 state statute for endangering the welfare of a child. Normally, those charged under the child endangerment statute had direct contact with children, such as teachers, parents or guardians. Lynn, however, never laid eyes on the victim in this case, the former 10-year-old altar boy, until he took the witness stand.

But Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington told the judge that this was the third time the defense was trying to get their client out on bail, and that under the law, Lynn wasn't entitled to it.

The defense had contended that Lynn's chance of winning an appeal was "surely no less than a 50/50 proposition" because of "the prosecutor's own recent contradictory interpretations of the EWOC [endangering the welfare of a child] statute"that Lynn had been convicted of.

The defense lawyers cited a 2005 grand jury report, issued under former District Attorney Lynne Abraham, that determined that Msgr. Lynn, Cardinal Bevilacqua and the rest of the archdiocese hierarchy were not liable under the EWOC statute. Then, a second grand jury in 2011, under a new district attorney, Seth Williams, recommended that Lynn be charged under that same EWOC statute.

But the judge didn't even address that argument. Following a 17-minute hearing, the judge said she was denying the motion because of the "serious nature of the crime" that Lynn had been convicted of. She did not elaborate.

Lynn, the archdiocese secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004, wasn't in the courtroom when the judge denied bail. He previously had waived his right to appear at today's hearing, which everybody realized the defense had little chance of winning. None of Lynn's family members showed up either.

Outside the courtroom, Lindy said the judge wasn't in a listening mode. "She really didn't want to hear any argument," he said.

Lindy then opened up another can of worms. Lynn's defense team plans an immediate appeal of the monsignor's conviction to Superior Court. But the archdiocese recently decided to cut back on funds for Lynn's appeal, Lindy said. The archdiocese had previously paid for four defense lawyers, which cost at least $75,000 a week for a 10 week-trial, or a minimum of $750,000.

But the archdiocese had only allocated $25,000 for an appeal, which would be carried on by two of Lynn's defense lawyers, Thomas A. Bergstrom and Allison Khashkelis of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. The remaining two defense lawyers, Lindy and Alan J. Tauber, have basically been cut loose, Lindy said. Lindy has represented Msgr. Lynn since 2004.

Lindy's remarks prompted a bizarre two-paragraph response from the archdiocese public relations office that baffled the archdiocese's own lawyers:

"Msgr. Lynn's counsel is strongly convicted that there were many errors at trial and the sentence is disproportionate to other punishment meted out to administrators for this same charge. This strong belief and care for Msgr. Lynn and his family has resulted in Msgr. Lynn's primary counsel, Tom Bergstrom, deciding to complete the appeal for Msgr. Lynn largely on a pro bono basis."

"The Archdiocese has and continues to believe Msgr. Lynn is entitled to all the rights afforded him by civil law, including the appeal, and we noted when he was sentenced that we hope that the ultimate decision in Msgr. Lynn's regard is just and merciful."

You have to wonder who writes this stuff.

First of all, the monsignor's defense lawyer stood up in court today and argued that Lynn is the first administrator in the Commonwealth to be charged under the child endangerment statute. There are no other convictions to compare Lynn's to, as well as no other "punishment meted out to administrators for this same charge."

Secondly, the defense lawyers aren't seeking a "just and merciful" punishment for the monsignor, they seek to overturn his conviction on the grounds that he never should have been charged under the EWOC statute in the first place because it didn't apply to him. These contradictions were pointed out to Kenneth A. Gavin, the archdiocese official who issued the statement. His response was, "I can't say much more than the fact that Tom Bergstrom has decided to complete the appeal for Msgr. Lynn largely on a pro-bono basis."

We got that Ken. In response to the archdiocese's statement, Jeff Lindy, one of the archdiocese's defense lawyers, put out his own statement: "I have no idea what that statement means," Lindy wrote of the archdiocese missive. "Is the Archdiocese continuing to support Msgr. Lynn or not? If they are, then they would pay his attorneys' fees on appeal. But it looks like they are no longer supporting him because they've told Tom Bergstrom to have his big firm continue on the case pro bono, and they've told me that whether or not I stay on the case, they're not paying my legal fees on appeal. It certainly appears that the Archdiocese is pulling their financial support for Msgr. Lynn at precisely the point in time when he needs their support the most."

"If we were ever going to win this case, this is we're going to win it -- on appeal, to a dispassionate appellate court that will hear out case and our arguments with an open mind and not prejudge the case as the trial court did," Lindy said, taking a swipe at Judge Sarmina.

"I've been setting up this EWOC issue since long before Msgr. Lynn was indicted when I represented him alone, and then during the trial, my partner, Alan Tauber, persuasively wrote a brief on this issue," Lindy wrote in an email. "It really doesn't make any sense for the Archdiocese to now say that it needs to cap the legal fees that it's paying to Msgr. Lynn."

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput visited Msgr. Lynn in prison early last month. The two men met for 90 minutes, at which time the archbishop supposedly told the monsignor he had his back. But actions speak louder than words. The archdiocese has previously spent $11.6 million in 2011-12 to defend itself in response to the most recent grand jury report. Now Lynn's fate during the appeal process has been entrusted to a pro bono legal team.

To Lindy, a lawyer who's been working for the archdiocese for the past eight years, it doesn't make a lot of sense. No wonder he was shaking his head outside the Criminal Justice Center.

"It's the same institution that brought you the shredding of the documents," Lindy said, referring to Cardinal Bevilacqua's decision back in 1994 to order the shredding of a list of active abuser priests in ministry that Lynn had compiled.